Dallas Mayor Flips to GOP: 'Cities Need Republicans'

[hollodero]

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't agree here.  A black person who is conservative is subject to abuse that the other groups, or people, you cite do not receive.  Being called a Uncle Tom or being accused of "cooning" is a common occurrence.  I've mentioned this before, but I heard more racial epithets directed at black, and to a much lesser extent Hispanic, officers during the "summer of love" from protestors than I had heard in my entire lifetime to that point.  For many there is a "correct way" to be black, and if you deviate from that you are guilty of an offense that justifies horrendous treatment.

I do not doubt these instances, protesters for one tend to have some more say extreme elements within them. I would, however, doubt that it goes so far that it can legitimately be called a trope for the democratic party as a whole. Eg. in case of that mayor, where I (of course I don't read all that much) have yet to see someone of importance calling him out for not being the right kind of black. As far as I can tell, in this specific instance skin color does not factor much into it and as long as the narrative doesn't switch that way, I will find it unnecessary to bring it up.

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is indeed speculation.  But if I may posit a position, do you not think it possible that a significant number of those angry people will, once their initial reaction cools, give some thought to his stated reasoning and actually examine their own position on those issues?

That would be an ideal, but I do not think the political landscape makes that realistic. I of course do not have any first hand experience. But from my perspective, intense refusal of the other party is among the most vivid motives for folks to vote a certain direction. Hardly any political argument fails to mention how awful the other party is, often there's no point beyond that. It's good versus evil on both sides. And not that I like it, but I guess that is also how many voters in Dallas feel.
I don't think making this switch in this highly polarized society is a good start for a meaningful debate. Most people, I assume, won't really listen and just stay angry. But alas, maybe I am wrong.

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This argument rather runs contrary to your oft stated, and well argued, dislike for our two party system.  An independent does not have access to the extensive web of political contacts that being a member of either party provides.  Nor can you accrue and spend political capital as effectively.  This is different than Sinema, as a senator you have a large degree of autonomy and their relatively small number gives you political clout regardless.  Still, we'll see if she is reelected now that she is partyless.

I guess she will not. As for me disliking the two party system, I do not see a contradiction here. If there weren't a two party system, Mr. Mayor could switch to a third, less polarizing party, for example. Imho it can also be argued that without a two-party system, cities would not automatically be so deeply blue and hence many more extreme and misled policies would not see the light of day in the first place.

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which is exactly why I think Johnson made the move he did, and in the way he made it.  He apparently believes, and I tend to agree, that you have to shock people out of deeply entrenched, and in this case awfully destructive, ideals.  We see examples of the deflection attempts in this very thread, with comparisons of everyday crime to Trump's "big lie".  They're not the same and shouting and flailing about Trump isn't going to distract someone from the fact they were just carjacked, nor will it make them feel better about the Dems being the "rule of law" party, all the while ignoring the rule of law when it comes to street level crime.

That is absolutely true, but it still is the reality of things regardless. You can not separate the republican party from Trump these days. I could not do that. And I guess many voters could not do that either. Much like you say you never vote for a Democrat again if things do not change - which I can understand - I would (theoretically, of course) feel the exact same way about the GOP as long as they do not stand up to Trump. If one switches to this party, one can not be perceived as doing so in complete ignorance of Trump and what he stands for.

Had Mr. Mayor just left the democratic party, all these points - and yeah they are not addressing the issue at hand, apparently - might not have been so dominant. That would be my point from before. I get the argument of having access. But if it's more about a symbolic act and to start a meaningful debate, this was not the best way to go, imho. One can see how not meaningful the debate turns out to be now.